Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron - equality in speculation is no vice, probabilities mangled are no virtue
- George Et Al,Interesting discussion. I am a firm believer that the LE is not Markan and was not in the Autographs. As far as dating the New Testament, I lean in the direction of a very early dating of all of the NT Documents. Robertson wrote his famous book on NT Dating and moved all the documents back to pre-AD 70, due to the fact that the Roman Jewish War and the Destruction of the Temple in AD70 is not mentioned in the NT. If the documents occurred after the events, they surely would have mentioned that fact as an apologetic device. Those devastating events would have been mentioned. I think it all comes down to papyri and manuscripts and such, The extant early manuscript evidence is against the inclusion of the LE. I know Bruce Terry of OVU and that he uses the literary concept of "Peak" to justify the inclusion of the LE. I prefer early manuscript evidence and early NT translations to make judgements of this sort. Some of the NT Pseudo-Gospels have a lot of "Peak", but that does not make them canonical. Just google Bruce Terry & the long ending of Mark, and you can get his article and read about peak.I do not know who wrote the LE, but Tatian is one of the usual suspects. Just my ramblings after debating the Johannine Comma with a TR/KJV Only group for a week. Oh well.On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote:
Steven, I was writing tongue-in-cheek only because making a categorical pronouncement that I thought Tatian was the author of the LE is purely speculation. The assertion that the LE was original is equally speculative since internal evidence indicates the contrary.
You use the word "equally" in a funny manner. After all, many fine scholars do see your internal evidence difficulty quite differently. There is a wealth of literature on the topic, from those like John Albert Broadus (1827–1895) and John William Burgon,(1813-1888). And the publications of Richard Lenski (1946 pub) William Farmer (1974 pub), Bruce Terry (1976 and updates) and Maurice Robinson. You may disagree with those gentlemen, yet surely that at least shows that the internal and stylistic issues are wide open, or at least subject to real earnest inquity.
And 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss have the traditional ending. And many ECW support inclusion. Even those opposed tend to write like Hort's "very early addition to the Gospel" and Metzger's idea that the section is canonical even if not autographic.
Now, above you very specifically offered an ultra-speculative and very difficult specific theory, in order to lessen the Diatessaron evidence. Creation by Tatian, and thus a possible explanation of the Diatessaron evidence. Clearly that theory has humongous difficulties, such as immediate and wide cross-language and cross-geography acceptance. Beyond the simple fact that, as far as the evidence we have, Tatian did not actually write the ending in the Diatessaron. He showed awareness of its existence through his harmony, but there was no long quote of the section.
How you can call these two ideas "equally speculative" is a puzzle, good for scholastic speculation. However, let us try to "do the math".
Your earlier usage of the same mathematical equation was:
Your previous post implies that simply because Justin wrote similar things to what is in the LE that he must have been familiar with it. It is equally as possible
Since you are expressing this mathematically, twice, would you be able to give your mathematical probabilities:
a) that the traditional ending is Markan autographic
b) that Tatian composed the traditional ending
If you do not want to answer those questions, I request that you do not use the mathematical "equally" in the probability discussion.
Note: I realize there are some like Bruce Metzger who want to consider the traditional ending as scriptural, canonical and not autographic. However, I would prefer "autographic" to mean "Markan original text".
- Ross, I just bascially know the bare facts about the Long Ending of Mark. But having done some research (a little) and reading this thread I understand that the Long Ending of Mark is in just about every translation (including the early Syriac Peshitta, which some say is the original behind the "Greek skin.")
As far as the Alternate ending are concerned, (correct me if I am wrong here folks) but only a very small, tiny (minute number) of mansucripts include the alternate Long Endings. IOW, the alternate Long Endings did not reproduce at all in the manuscript copies.
--- In email@example.com, Ross Purdy <rossjpurdy@...> wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> On 9/9/2012 10:35 AM, Gary Cummings wrote:
> > Do not forget that many early translations of the NT do not include
> > the LE, and that there are alternative endings to Mark. These two
> > facts speak against the inclusion of the LE as the true ending of Mark.
> Which early translations do not include the LE and what are the
> alternative endings and in what manuscripts do they appear?
> Ross Purdy